Karnataka HC Refuses Bail to PFI Member Accused of Fundraising and Radicalisation

The Karnataka High Court has refused to grant bail to a Popular Front of India member accused of being part of a larger conspiracy to radicalise Muslim youth and raise funds for terrorist activities, holding that the material on record disclosed reasonable grounds to believe the accusations were prima facie true and that the statutory bar under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act squarely applied.

The Court held that procedural lapses alleged in seizure and the absence of sanction for one of the invoked provisions did not dilute the prosecution case at the bail stage, particularly when the accusations related to organised unlawful activities and terror funding.

A Division Bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the order rejecting bail passed by the NIA Special Court, observing that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order and that the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA clearly barred grant of bail.

The Court emphasised that it was not permissible to conduct a mini-trial while considering bail in cases involving serious allegations under special anti-terror legislation

The appeal was filed by Shahid Khan, arraigned as accused No.14 in Special Case No.744 of 2023, who had challenged the order dated 02.05.2025 by which his regular bail application was rejected. He was arrested on 22.09.2022 and was being prosecuted along with nineteen other accused for offences punishable under Sections 153A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B and 22B of the UAPA.

The prosecution case stemmed from Crime No.328 of 2022 registered by Kadugondanahalli Police, which later culminated in a voluminous charge sheet alleging the existence of a deep-rooted conspiracy operating through the Popular Front of India.

According to the prosecution, the accused were office bearers, members and cadres of PFI who allegedly harboured extreme religious views and were provoked by developments such as the Citizenship Amendment Act, the National Register of Citizens, the hijab controversy and the Babri Masjid judgment.

It was alleged that they conspired to radicalise Muslim youth, foment religious enmity, destabilise public order and ultimately wage an internal war against the Government of India. The charge sheet alleged that the accused sought to eliminate prominent Hindu leaders, spread terror among the Hindu community and undermine the sovereignty and integrity of the nation by training service teams, conducting arms training and preparing for violent acts including murder and bomb blasts.

Specific allegations were levelled against the appellant that he held the position of District President of the Davanagere Zone from 2019 and actively participated in organisational activities, recruitment, meetings and training camps.

The prosecution also linked him to conspiratorial meetings held in November, 2021 and January, 2022 and alleged his involvement in fundraising activities. It was further alleged that charitable trusts such as the Freedom Educational and Charitable Trust were used as fronts to facilitate unlawful activities and that funds amounting to over Rs. 9 crore were raised between 2011 and 2022 across multiple states.

Before the High Court, the appellant argued that PFI was not a banned organisation at the time of registration of the FIR and therefore certain provisions of the UAPA were not attracted. He also contended that the offences alleged against him carried lesser punishment and that there was no direct allegation of involvement in any murder or terrorist act.

Emphasis was placed on the prolonged incarceration of over two years and four months, the large number of witnesses cited in the charge sheet and the likelihood of inordinate delay in trial.

It was further argued that sanction had not been accorded for prosecution under Section 18 of the UAPA and that the Investigating Officer had failed to comply with mandatory procedures under Chapter V of the Act while seizing cash from his residence.

The State, opposing the appeal, submitted that the appellant was an active member of an unlawful organisation and that the investigation had revealed his role in ideological propagation, recruitment, training and fund mobilisation. It was contended that the narrative disseminated by the accused sought to portray Indian governance as hostile to Muslims and advocated establishment of Islamic rule by 2047.

The prosecution stressed that there was sufficient material to attract the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) and that the appellant had not demonstrated any change in circumstances warranting consideration of a successive bail application.

The High Court analysed the legal position governing successive bail applications and reiterated that while such applications were not barred per se, they could be entertained only upon a demonstrable change in circumstances.

The Court noted that many grounds urged by the appellant had already been considered earlier and that the newly raised contentions did not justify interference.

On the issue of sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA, the Court clarified that sanction was a precondition for taking cognizance of offences and not tied to individual accused. It held that absence of sanction for a specific provision did not automatically preclude continuation of proceedings when cognizance had already been taken for the offences alleged.

Addressing the contention regarding illegal seizure of cash, the Court held that non-compliance with procedural requirements under Section 25 of the UAPA could at best amount to an irregularity and did not strike at the root of the prosecution case at the bail stage.

The Court observed that there was material connecting the appellant to terror funding and that whether the statutory ingredients were ultimately established was a matter for trial.

The Bench reiterated that courts considering bail under the UAPA could not engage in detailed evaluation of evidence.

The Court also dismissed an interlocutory application filed by the appellant seeking summoning of the case diary, holding that an accused had no right to call for the case diary and that it could only be summoned at the instance of the Court for its own perusal. Finding no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the rejection of bail

Case Title: Shahid Khan v State of Karnataka

Date of Order: 23.01.2026

Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T